No Left Turns

Washington: Britain's Arch-Nemesis

George Washington has been named Britain's greatest ever foe, according to the UK's National Army Museum.

The American Revolutionary War hero and the country's first president was the winner of a vote held at the museum Saturday to identify the Britain's most outstanding military opponent, The (London) Daily Telegraph reported.

Washington triumphed over the likes of Michael Collins, Napoleon, Rommel and Ataturk for the (in)famous title of "greatest foe ever." One hopes that the title was born of respect on the part of the British. Of course, Collins, Napoleon and Rommel were ultimately unsuccessful and Ataturk enjoyed only limited successes. Washington alone won a victory for all ages, as it were, in American democracy. And his miraculous cannon fortification of Dorchester Heights during the ultimately successful siege of Boston remains an unsurpassed example of military leadership.

Perhaps the British merely wished to name the only man to defeat them in recent history as the greatest of men in recent history. If one must be defeated, let it be by the greatest of adversaries. Whatever their reasoning, the truth is the same: Washington was the greatest of men.

cowgirl, their National Army Museum is saying Washington was a great general, better than Rommel, better than Napoleon. We won a war of independence because George Washington was a better general than the British generals sent to defeat us. I don't understand what you are complaining about here.

is a Baron, a Life Peer, appointed by Tony Blair in 1998, probably because he was a major donor to the Labour Party. He's a Muslim, not a liberal at all in any real sense of the word. You make it sound like the House of Lords declared the bounty, when it didn't and even the Labour Party is embarrassed by what he has done. The incident says something about where loyalties lie for British Muslims. It also says something about who the Labour Party thinks their friends are and what is a logical end of their politics.

"The incident says something about where loyalties lie for British Muslims."

Come on, Kate. I've been having to work too hard lately to distinguish between you and cowgirl, and something feels really wrong about that. Are you sure you don't want to dial that back a bit?

If not, do you think it would be fair or reasonable for me to extrapolate anything about American Christians based on any one thing that Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Rick Perry, Ann Coulter, or any popular US (Christian) televangelist has said or done?

Following your method of extrapolating what a large group of people think based on what one individual in the group says or does... it would appear that Anders Breivik and you have at least a few things in common:

Sorry, Craig, that's what I was reading about the incident in the British press. We are all worrying about the loyalties of our Muslim populations in the West, aren't we? If a guy in the House of Lords is a problem, there's a problem.

We here all know you have a problem with discernment. So, naturally, I forgive you.

Those who have been reading (and especially writing) here a long time know that you do extrapolate all sorts of things based on any one thing anyone says.

(Above, I cut and pasted the peer's name, so as not to misspell. It showed up in the little box as I was writing, but I see it has vanished on posting. Live and learn.)

It's pretty clear that you don't "give a crap" what anyone thinks, probably because the witless bile that goes on in what passes for your brain is about as far removed from thinking as it's possible for something that goes on in the head to be.

A few other things:

Given the paucity of your grasp of language (I'd say the English language, but you probably don't give a crap about anything "English" either), I'm not sure you've ever made ANYTHING "perfectly clear."

Secondly, your remarks about Britain are stupid, vacuous, and utterly without foundation. A paradise for socialists? Really? I think anyone who reads a newspaper would disagree. "... basically full of stupid, lazy people"? Really? Evidence? Nope. Don't need that when you've got prejudice and knee jerk assumption on your side.

Lastly, a seat in the house of Lords has long been a reward for services rendered to party or country; it's full of donors to political parties of every stripe. Why someone's being a muslim should rule them out of consideration is beyond me. But then again, most of the bullshit that you spout is beyond me.

F**king moron.

Get back to abusing those children of yours. Or, as you like to call it, home "schooling."

Leave a Comment

* denotes a required field

Name *

Email Address *

URL

Remember personal info?

Comments * (You may use HTML for style. For longer comments, we suggest typing them into a word processing program and pasting them in here in case there is an error during the posting of your comment.)